If you call your company “AutoRABIT” using AutoRabit.com get ready to send typo-traffic to AutoRabbit.com. Most people would type the word “rabbit” as in the cute mammal and not some tech acronym.
A fun UDRP involving the “properly spelled” domain AutoRabbit.com was lost for the Respondent, for the following reasons:
- It forwarded to a competitor’s web site
- They did not file a response
- The web site displayed zero rabbits
The Forum (NAF) panelist ordered the domain AutoRabbit.com to be transferred to the Complainant that will now be in control of a cuter version of their brand. Target AutoRabid.com next?
Copyright © 2024 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.AutoRABIT Holding, Inc. v. Frederico Larsen / Copado Solution SL
Claim Number: FA2209002014143
PARTIES
Complainant is AutoRABIT Holding, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Nate Garhart of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Frederico Larsen / Copado Solution SL (“Respondent”), Spain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is , registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 29, 2022. Forum received payment on September 30, 2022.
On October 3, 2022, Amazon Registrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the domain name is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Amazon Registrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Amazon Registrar, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 4, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 24, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@autorabbit.com. Also on October 4, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 1, 2022, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to its United States registered trademark AutoRABIT and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, which has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
As to lack of legitimacy, Respondent, a competitor of Complainant, has never been commonly known by the domain name; is not affiliated with Complainant; is not permitted to use Complainant’s mark; and is using the domain name, which is a common misspelling of Complainant’s domain name, to redirect users who misspell Complainant’s name to its own competing webpage at “www.copado.com”.
As to bad faith, Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of attempting to confuse, for commercial gain, customers seeking access to Complainant’s website at “www.autorabit.com”, but mistakenly assuming the correct spelling is with a double “b” as in “rabbit.” Respondent registered the domain name to intercept and direct such customers to its own website, offering the very same type of software and services.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the AutoRABIT mark through registration with the USPTO, Reg. No. 4,671,321, registered on January 13, 2015 for use in connection with, among other things, software for automation of software development, deployment, and delivery. Applying a side-by-side comparison, the Panel finds Respondent’s domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s AutoRABIT mark, only differing by the additional letter “b”, which does not distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The domain name was registered on June 12, 2016, some 18 months after Complainant registered its AutoRABIT mark and several years after Complainant began to operate its website at “www.autorabit.com”. It resolves to a website at “www.copado.com”, displaying the message “Copado is the only DevOps platform to fully integrate AI-driven Robotic Testing into every branch of code you deploy”. The website offers services which compete directly with those of Complainant.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s AutoRABIT mark when Respondent registered the domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: November 2, 2022
